Fastest
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/laser-marking-and-traceability-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Laser Marking and TraceabilityLaser Marking and Traceability Patents: Who Leads and Where Filing Is Headed
- 17.5% of all 2,334 records sit with the top five assignees combined — a concentrated core with a long tail of single-digit filers behind it.
- B41M and B23K are nearly tied at the top of the technology mix, at 24.4% and 23.8% of records respectively, showing marking process and beam-material interaction are equally contested.
- Filing fell 20% from 101 in 2021 to 81 in 2024, the last year with complete publication data — a real cooling, not an artefact of publication lag.
2,334
Published Records
17%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-20%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (101 records) with 2024 (81) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 2,334 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
Laser marking and traceability patents span the physics of how a beam alters a surface — annealing marks, contrast generation, corrosion resistance of the mark — and the data layer that makes the mark useful, from data matrix code generation to readability grading at speed. The scope here pulls records where both a marking method (laser marking, laser engraving, direct part marking) and a traceability or quality attribute (contrast, corrosion resistance, marking speed, readability grading) appear together, which keeps the set focused on marks meant to be read back reliably rather than purely decorative etching.
The set covers 2,334 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026, drawn from a mix of medical device, packaging, industrial laser and automotive-component filers. Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend understate true filing activity.
Filing activity and technology mix, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Laser Marking and Traceability covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
The data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 2,334-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which technical branches carry the claim density.
Filing rose to a 2019 peak, then eased
Annual filings climbed to a peak of 188 records in 2019, then declined through the early 2020s; the complete-year comparison shows a 20% drop from 101 filings in 2021 to 81 in 2024. Readers should treat 2025 and 2026 figures as still filling in given the usual publication lag.
Marking process and beam-material interaction dominate
B41M (printing and marking processes) leads at 24.4% of the 2,334 records, with B23K (welding, soldering and brazing — where beam-material interaction claims sit) close behind at 23.8%. G06K (data recognition) at 17.9% marks the read-back layer, while B65D packaging, A61M body-fluid devices, C08K polymer additives and B29C plastics shaping each carry a smaller but distinct share, reflecting how many end industries this search string touches.
Shares are the percentage of the 2,334 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Laser Marking and Traceability covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Laser Marking and Traceability with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about laser marking and traceability and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey patents
A representative claim and the most-cited prior art
Representative record
Marking a Workpiece with a Data Matrix Code by Means of a Laser Beam (US20170080734A1)
TRUMPF WERKZEUGMASCHINEN GMBH + CO. KG
This disclosure relates to methods and apparatuses for marking a data matrix code in the form of an n*m cell matrix of light and dark cells, which respectively consist of a light or dark s*t pixel matrix, on a workpiece by a laser beam, wherein a laser processing unit directs the laser beam onto the workpiece, scans, pixel row by pixel row, the workpiece region to be marked, respectively with a constant marking speed and alternately in opposite directions, and wherein the light pixels and/or the dark pixels are marked on the workpiece during the scan by temporarily switching on the laser beam.Filed by Trumpf Werkzeugmaschinen; published 2017-03-23.
Most-cited records in this landscape
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5739518A | Autodiscrimination for dataform decoding and standardized recording | 505 |
| 2 | US20170331896A1 | Methods and systems for processing assets | 340 |
| 3 | US6238847B1 | Laser marking method and apparatus | 296 |
| 4 | US6075223A | High contrast surface marking | 241 |
| 5 | US5837962A | Faster laser marker employing acousto-optic deflection | 233 |
| 6 | US20140263674A1 | Systems, Methods, and Apparatus for Integrating Scannable Codes in Medical Devices | 216 |
| 7 | US20040031779A1 | Method and system for calibrating a laser processing system and laser marking system utilizing same | 206 |
| 8 | US20110213700A1 | Electronic notary system, method and computer-readable medium | 201 |
| 9 | US6976627B1 | Identification of units in customized production | 191 |
| 10 | US20120123322A1 | Medical treatment system and methods using a plurality of fluid lines | 181 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and favour older filings; they are not a measure of current commercial importance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Laser Marking and Traceability covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →Insights
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three read-outs from the concentration, trend and geography data, framed for where to file next rather than what already exists.
Concentration
17.5% of 2,334 records
top five combined
A defined core, then a long tail
The leader holds 154 records with the fifth-place assignee at 41 and tenth place at 24 — a steep drop-off after the top few. Below the top ten, the ranked field of 100 companies thins into single- and low-double-digit filers, which is where freedom-to-operate work usually needs the most care rather than the top of the table.
Ranked leaders, not a top-50 or top-100 cutoff.
Trend
-20% (2021→2024)
complete-year filing change
Cooling after a 2019 peak
Filing activity peaked at 188 records in 2019 and has eased since, with the last fully comparable window showing a 20% decline from 101 to 81 records. That is a genuine slowdown in complete-year data, not a publication-lag artefact — though 2025-2026 counts will still rise as records publish.
2024 is the newest year treated as complete.
Geography
US 683 · EPO 403 · WIPO 243
leading receiving offices
US-centred filing with a strong PCT layer
The United States receives the largest single share of filings, followed by the European Patent Office and WIPO's PCT route, with China, Germany and Austria filling out the next tier. The PCT volume signals many filers are seeking multi-jurisdiction cover rather than filing nationally only.
Receiving-office counts, not family counts.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to laser marking and traceability, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Laser Marking and Traceability covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is filing, and where momentum has stalled
The ranked field spans medical-device, packaging and industrial-laser assignees; recent-year momentum data shows several of the most active historical filers have gone quiet.
Leader
154 records
top-ranked assignee
One clear leader, sizeable gap to fifth
The top-ranked assignee holds more than three times the record count of the fifth-place filer (41), pointing to a company that treated laser marking and traceability as a core claim area rather than an incidental filing.
Counted in patent families.
Momentum
0 in latest year
multiple leading filers
Several top historical filers show zero recent filings
Recent-year momentum data shows multiple assignees among the most active historically — including filers with -100% year-on-year change — recording zero filings in the latest year. This does not necessarily mean exit; it may reflect the publication lag on very recent applications.
Latest-year counts understate true activity.
Collaboration
10 co-assignee pairs
identified pairings
Co-filing is rare and concentrated
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest repeating pairs all involve the same lead assignee working with individual named inventors rather than joint corporate ventures — collaboration here looks more like internal inventor teams than cross-company alliances.
Pair counts from co-assignee analysis.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| DEKA Products LP | 0 | -100% |
| Crown Packaging Technology Inc | 0 | — |
| Freezio AG | 0 | — |
| Alltec Angewandte Laser Licht Technologie GmbH | 0 | -100% |
| Ferro Corp | 0 | — |
| Carl Zeiss Vision International GmbH | 0 | -100% |
| Abbott Diabetes Care Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Align Technology Inc | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Laser Marking and Traceability covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next
Where to take this landscape
The dataset points to a few concrete next steps for teams deciding where to file or where to watch.
Check freedom-to-operate below the top ten
With the top ten holding only 24.0% of all 2,334 records, most claim density sits among single- and low-digit filers further down the ranking — a harder search than checking the leader alone.
Run a freedom-to-operate search in Eureka →Watch the quiet leaders
Several historically active assignees show zero filings in the latest year; confirm whether that reflects publication lag or a genuine shift before assuming the space has opened up.
Track assignee momentum in Eureka →Probe the under-claimed branches
Corrosion resistance testing, readability grading automation and low-contrast decoding sit behind the core B41M/B23K claim mass and may offer clearer first-claim territory.
Explore white space in Eureka →Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Laser Marking and Traceability covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on laser marking and traceability patents
The ranked field covers 100 assignees, with the leader holding 154 records and a steep drop to 41 at fifth place and 24 at tenth. The top five combined account for 17.5% of all 2,334 records in scope, and the top ten for 24.0% — a concentrated core followed by a long tail of low-volume filers. This is not a top-50 or top-100 cutoff; it is the entire ranking the dataset returns.
Filing peaked at 188 records in 2019 and has since cooled, with complete-year data showing a 20% decline from 101 filings in 2021 to 81 in 2024. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures will rise as more records publish, but the 2021-2024 comparison already reflects a real slowdown rather than a lag artefact.
Marking process claims (IPC B41M) lead at 24.4% of the 2,334 records, closely followed by welding, soldering and brazing-related beam-material interaction claims (B23K) at 23.8%. Data recognition and presentation (G06K), covering the read-back side such as data matrix decoding, sits at 17.9%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should be read as overlapping claim density, not as a breakdown of one whole.
Branches like corrosion resistance testing protocols for marks, automated readability grading and data matrix decoding under low-contrast conditions show comparatively thin filing relative to the dense core of marking-process and packaging claims. These sit adjacent to well-claimed territory rather than being wholly new, so a first claim there needs to be drafted carefully against the existing B41M and G06K prior art. Teams considering this space should run a targeted prior-art search before assuming the area is genuinely open.
US20170080734A1, filed by Trumpf Werkzeugmaschinen, covers a method and apparatus for marking a data matrix code as an n-by-m cell matrix on a workpiece using a laser beam scanned pixel row by pixel row at a constant marking speed, alternating direction between rows. It is a specific scanning-pattern and speed-control claim rather than a claim over data matrix marking in general, so it constrains particular row-scanning and speed-constancy implementations without necessarily blocking all laser data-matrix marking approaches. Anyone designing a similar system should check claim scope against alternative scan patterns or variable-speed marking, which may sit outside it.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Laser Marking and Traceability covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Laser Marking and Traceability in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole laser marking and traceability corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company's registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.